Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

. There is no current US production. But the factory is there, fully equipted and waiting....

That's interesting. And expensive. They're making $0 on it, but it must still have some costs -- property tax, security, utilities, the interest that could have been made on the value of it all.... It sounds like a situation that won't be sustained for long. I hope it ends the good way, with production starting up, rather than just selling everything.

Baldwins were stocked in the piano shop where my wife worked, teaching in Barrow in Furness, England. And they were my favourite. Now, since you`re on a roll as they say, there may be hope for British Motorcycles . . . .

I took a leap of faith with the Baldwin product and I am glad I did. For many years I had sold new Kawai products and I would say that the "quality control" that so many people associate with Japanese products is equaled in the Baldwin product today. I have been selling chinese pianos from the early days of chinese products 15 years ago and at that point the jury was out and so was the regulation of most of the products purchased from china. Chinese pianos used to need many man hours to make them a good alternative to used instruments. But today the Chinese assembled pianos are very good and equal to the Japanese assembled pianos as is the case with the Baldwin pianos. There are still a few Chinese made pianos owned by Chinese companies that are still questionable. However, the quality of components in the Baldwin and many other Chinese products meet or exceed the Japanese manufacturers. This is one reason Yamaha has upped its game with the cx series Yamahas adding things like German hammers, German strings, and more crown to the soundboard. The only thing that the Japanese may have had going for them was the brand loyalty and recognition. Now with Baldwin / Gibson ,an American company, in charge of quality control and warranty I see many Baldwins being sold in the upcoming years.

Steve,Being a technician I am interested about the designs being used-are they the same scales that were made in the US?

Yes, I am honestly curious well, what the new pianos have in common with the old ones besides the name. There as so many pianos with old German and American names on them now coming out of China which have nothing at all in common with the products made by the original company. The names are strictly used to try to conjure up some image of heritage, tradition and continuity (= quality) in the minds of would-be buyers.

Maybe Baldwin is different, perhaps they are now producing the tried and true product under more economically feasible condition in Asia?

No news here. Just some more Chinese pianos slapping an old brand name on them and trying to profit from its halo. Given the text on the dealer website it can be considered a kind of deceptive marketing practice. There is a sucker born every minute.

"My very first motorcycle was a BSA 441 Victor Special. The one with the chrome and yellow tank. 441 cc's of single cylinder goodness."

It`s so hard not to resond to this. But that`s two postings on the piano site which are now featuring old British Motorbikes. I had a hand in `em both . . . . Sorry Adminy . . .It`ll be steam trains next . . .

_________________________
"I'm playing all the right notes � but not necessarily in the right order." Eric Morecambe

No news here. Just some more Chinese pianos slapping an old brand name on them and trying to profit from its halo.

Baldwins are manufactured in one of the oldest and most experienced piano factories in China. Rather than "slapping an old brand name on them", Baldwin bought the factory, which was considered one of the best. See: Dongbei Facts and Baldwin Facts.

Today, the designs are unique to Baldwin, and the factory is owned and operated by Baldwin. The quality control is excellent and their instruments serve well in their market segment.

(it is rumored that Baldwin will be rated as Tier One pianos in the upcoming issue of Piano Buyer.

i'm confused. i searched the online Piano Buyer guide for the term "tier" and only one minor reference came up -- no tiered classifications for pianos. by "tier one" are you saying that baldwin will be classified with the highest quality performance grade pianos such as fazioli and steingraeber?

i'm also confused as to how the pianos are categorized on page 44 of the PBG... without a proper matrix these classifications strike me as arbitrary opinion with no quantifiable data to back them up. the accompanying text does little to instill confidence in the classifications. i'm scratching my head over many of the classifications. hopefully the upcoming issue of PBG will correct these vague classifications.

i'm also confused as to how the pianos are categorized on page 44 of the PBG... without a proper matrix these classifications strike me as arbitrary opinion with no quantifiable data to back them up. the accompanying text does little to instill confidence in the classifications. i'm scratching my head over many of the classifications. hopefully the upcoming issue of PBG will correct these vague classifications.

Hi Entheo.

Even though I am was and am part of the team that helped evolve the "Map", I can easily understand how the chart can be confusing. It is a very difficult and complex issue.

My best suggestion is that you re-read the first few paragraphs of the introduction to the Ma on Page 44. Introduction to the Map

Viewing the Map in that frame of reference denoted in those paragraphs may help.

Even though I am was and am part of the team that helped evolve the "Map", I can easily understand how the chart can be confusing. It is a very difficult and complex issue.

My best suggestion is that you re-read the first few paragraphs of the introduction to the Ma on Page 44. Introduction to the Map

Viewing the Map in that frame of reference denoted in those paragraphs may help.

thanks steve i had read that and altho that paragraph contributes to a broad understanding it doesn't help to understand how the pianos themselves are actually classified.

IMHO it would be far better to provide a set of product matrixes by (perhaps) retail price range, e.g.:

... with categories such as rim thickness, action details (e.g. hammers: density of felt and/or mfgr=renner), soundboard type/origin/months aged (e.g. sitka spruce, 24 mths), plate type, QMS certification, country of assembly, warranty, string source & type, % handmade, etc. etc. etc. If a mfgr is unwilling to provide these details put an "n/a" in that box. the ones who provide the most details will attract the most attention. this would be a meaningful quantitative comparison IMHO.

first, i'm not trying to hijack steve's baldwin thread, but one confusion led to another. not sure i'm going to get the answers i'm looking for.

wrt your restaurant analogy, norbert -- of course everyone has personal tastes and opinions upon which they make personal decisions. the question here is that, similar to the restaurant industry which has journalistic organizations which rate restaurants based on specific criteria & rating systems (e.g. zagat, michelin), if the only piano publication for consumers doesn't have a published baseline of data upon which to reference their classifications then how is anyone to trust that the published opinions are any more objective than anyone else's opinion? this isn't rocket science -- every industry and sub-sector has quantifiable matrices, measures and the resulting deterministic formulas for ranking.

to switch analogies yet again, anyone shopping for a car who's going to spend many thousands of dollars will go to multiple professional sources to compare features, specifications, performance, reliability history, warranty, etc. Although the decision to purchase may well come down to subjective experience it's the objective data that justifiably narrows the playing field. i doubt they're going to get that data at a dealership.

No news here. Just some more Chinese pianos slapping an old brand name on them and trying to profit from its halo. Given the text on the dealer website it can be considered a kind of deceptive marketing practice. There is a sucker born every minute.

TJ,

I think what Steve has provided makes it clear that this isn't your classic case of buying a defunct piano brand name that still has a shred of respectability and slapping it on yet another mediocre generic piano. But just to add to that, I think you have to understand the DongBei sitatuion in the years preceding the Gibson purchase.

DongBei in those years was a contract manufacturer. There were no DongBei pianos per se in the West, only a proliferation of brand names contracted to DongBei by piano 'manufacturers' who were shopping contract price. In addition to the ones mentioned in Pianobuyer, there were Suzuki's, August Hoffman's, and pianosuperstore's house brand -- the Ellenburg's (I think you probably remember that one). Quality varied according to the specifics of the contract, so DongBei was as bad as its worst and as good as its best. IMO the best was Nordiska, but that's only one opinion. The Gibson purchase allowed Baldwin the opportunity to take DongBei's grand designs that always had a lot of promise and give the factory a more consistent standard of manufacture.

I first played Baldwin China grands in Spain of all places. I felt they were just about identical to the Nordiskas and Hallets I had played in the US. I bumped into them in another European country, but I don't recall exactly where. When I was back in the US, I looked for Baldwin China pianos but never did find anyone selling them. I couldn't understand it. The retail prices were extremely low according to Pianobuyer for what IMO the product offered

I still haven't seen or played one Baldwin China piano in the US, but based on what I know firsthand of DongBei's grands over the past decade, I can easily understand why Steve would take on the line if he feels that production has stabilized and the supply chain is solid. I'm sure it's a small boost to potential sales that the Baldwin name is now attached to the product. Steve has stated in the past that his client market is hesitant about Chinese pianos, and the Baldwin name probably adds some subconscious reassurance. But the bottom line is that at the time DongBei was sold, the factory was producing grand pianos as good as or better than any other piano factory in China, and those grands were in no way generic. Gibson may give DongBei grands a new lease of life in the West even if its core strategy is obviously to sell into the Chinese market.

Personally, I don't feel that the photo of Steve standing between Baldwin crates captures a moment of historical importance , but it does show that he's committed to giving it a go in his market and risking some of his many millions to see what happens.

...if the only piano publication for consumers doesn't have a published baseline of data upon which to reference their classifications then how is anyone to trust that the published opinions are any more objective than anyone else's opinion? this isn't rocket science -- every industry and sub-sector has quantifiable matrices, measures and the resulting deterministic formulas for ranking.

Your supposition is in fact - not a supposition but the reality of the publication. Piano Buyer is, by far, the world's leading piano publication for consumers. And, as you point out, does not rely on metrics, or on verifiable standards. And, Larry would be the first to admit that it is subjective in many aspects.

Yet, in reality it does a great job of providing a basis for consumers and, as Larry says in the introduction to the Map, "My sense is that most knowledgable peolple in the industry would agree in broad terms with this comparison, though many will disagree with me - and with each other - about the details".

Thousands of consumers have made wiser decisions through the information in PB. IMHO, and that of many, many others, it serves it purpose well.

So I recently bought a BP152. Admittedly, most of you are likely far more experienced pianists. However, this site has taught me to play, listen, and then judge. We have a Yamaha DP and then purchased an antique (albeit, great condition) Marshall and Wendell baby grand. I have posted about the M&W and really came to appreciate its history as well as its beautiful case. Anyhow, the more we play, the more we realize what our needs are. In other words, the action was not keeping up. I found myself playing the DP more but really enjoying the mellow sound of the M&W. Short story, we went to my dealer to look around. We tried out a Kawai (gm 10k, I think), the Baldwin, and some other used pianos. I was not sure what to expect with the Baldwin based on mixed reviews here but decided to go try it out. I narrowed it down to the new Kawai and the Baldwin. I preferred the sound and touch of the latter. That coupled with the slow release fallboard and the brass caps on the legs and pedals really sold me. I decided to go back the next day and have my kid play both... without revealing my feelings, she picked the Baldwin BP152, hands down. We couldn't be happier with our purchase. I am now finding that I prefer the grand to the DP for, not only its better sound, but its quicker action! So, we love our new Baldwin! Having played many other pianos, I am sure some of you would be impressed based on its class. I will def try to post pics tomorrow (I can never post here?).

...if the only piano publication for consumers doesn't have a published baseline of data upon which to reference their classifications then how is anyone to trust that the published opinions are any more objective than anyone else's opinion? this isn't rocket science -- every industry and sub-sector has quantifiable matrices, measures and the resulting deterministic formulas for ranking.

Your supposition is in fact - not a supposition but the reality of the publication. Piano Buyer...as you point out, does not rely on metrics, or on verifiable standards. And, Larry would be the first to admit that it is subjective in many aspects.

Yet, in reality it does a great job of providing a basis for consumers and, as Larry says in the introduction to the Map, "My sense is that most knowledgable peolple in the industry would agree in broad terms with this comparison, though many will disagree with me - and with each other - about the details".

Thousands of consumers have made wiser decisions through the information in PB. IMHO, and that of many, many others, it serves it purpose well.

In other words, Piano Buyer, as the bible for the old-fashioned (US retail) piano industry, has more in common with religion than with science.

You need to believe in it.

It is clear that thousands of consumers having bought (and bought into) it have made decisions based in part or even wholly on their interpretation of the publication, just like thousands of consumers have made decisions on where to eat in the evening after studying the advertising flyer in their hotel room.

That is different than your statement that they have made wiser decisions.

it would be far better to provide a set of product matrixes by (perhaps) retail price range, e.g.:

... with categories such as rim thickness, action details (e.g. hammers: density of felt and/or mfgr=renner), soundboard type/origin/months aged (e.g. sitka spruce, 24 mths), plate type, QMS certification, country of assembly, warranty, string source & type, % handmade, etc. etc. etc. If a mfgr is unwilling to provide these details put an "n/a" in that box. the ones who provide the most details will attract the most attention. this would be a meaningful quantitative comparison IMHO.

Although I'm surprised the marketing departments haven't churned out information like that (actually they have... most piano manufacturer's websites do list much of this information) it's the "meaningful" part I question.

How many pianists would know the difference between Mapes Internation Gold wire and Roeslau? Is there a difference to the pianist at all? Should I get the piano with Arledge Bass Strings?

Now I'm shopping... uh oh... this piano has a slightly thinner rim, but I like it. Wait... my handy chart said thicker rims were better, right? Lets see... where are the Mason and Hamlins?

I don't think looking at the individual factors will not allow most pianists to predict how the sum of the parts will come together and form an instrument. Sometimes it seems like those who design instruments can't even figure that out.

pianoloverus
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 20371
Loc: New York City

Originally Posted By: theJourney

Originally Posted By: Steve Cohen

Originally Posted By: Entheo

...if the only piano publication for consumers doesn't have a published baseline of data upon which to reference their classifications then how is anyone to trust that the published opinions are any more objective than anyone else's opinion? this isn't rocket science -- every industry and sub-sector has quantifiable matrices, measures and the resulting deterministic formulas for ranking.

Your supposition is in fact - not a supposition but the reality of the publication. Piano Buyer...as you point out, does not rely on metrics, or on verifiable standards. And, Larry would be the first to admit that it is subjective in many aspects.

Yet, in reality it does a great job of providing a basis for consumers and, as Larry says in the introduction to the Map, "My sense is that most knowledgeable people in the industry would agree in broad terms with this comparison, though many will disagree with me - and with each other - about the details".

Thousands of consumers have made wiser decisions through the information in PB. IMHO, and that of many, many others, it serves it purpose well.

In other words, Piano Buyer, as the bible for the old-fashioned (US retail) piano industry, has more in common with religion than with science.

You need to believe in it.

The reason PB does not rely on metrics is that those don't really apply to pianos(or there are so many of them that they are impractical/not meaningful). One cannot evaluate pianos like vacuum cleaners because they are far more complex. Thus the fact that PB doesn't rely on metrics is in no way a negative.

One only has to have reasonable confidence and trust in Larry Fine and his staff to find the information in the PB useful. I think 99+% of those who know Fine think he is one of the most straightforward, honest, and knowledgeable people in the piano industry. Even those who don't know Fine personally but who read the PB can probably deduce this by considering the carefully worded descriptions and comments.

Comparing the PB to an advertising flyer for a restaurant is so far from the truth that it makes me wonder if those who say that have even looked at the PB.

pianoloverus
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 20371
Loc: New York City

Originally Posted By: musicpassion

I don't think looking at the individual factors will not allow most pianists to predict how the sum of the parts will come together and form an instrument.

Exactly, and in many cases it's not at all clear what's "better" for a given factor.

For example, rim thickness is not necessarily better as it gets larger. Some might say Mason Hamlin's very thick rims offer some advantages while others would just say they're overbuilt. If someone is interested in particular specifications of a piano, they are often available on the maker's website. Also, listing even a small number of specifications for each model for each maker would require many extra pages in the PB.

The way I see it no one needs to believe in PB, nor does anyone have to trust Larry Fine (even thought he is certainly trustworthy).

One need only to read PB and judge for themselves if the information in PB is honest and if it is helpful or not.

The feedback we have received in the 4 years we have worked on PB, much of which has been posted here, has been overwhelmingly positive. This includes feeback from high-end shoppers as well as first time buyers.

I thought the grand I bought was a Dongbei built piano. My tech did as well and praised their newer piano production.

The Baldwin China grands I played, a 165 and 185, were clones of the Nordiska G and K models. I can't imagine they weren not built at the DongBei plant.

Still, that was two years ago. Norbert has placed Parsons bait on his spinning line twice on this thread, so I imagine he has some weight on the line as well. Nothing would surprise me in the world of Chinese piano manufacture.

i would argue that pianos are no more magical a product than vacuum cleaners or automobiles or restaurants in that being informed by objective information and thus being educated on a topic usually results in better decision making. people can choose to ignore the information (e.g. what type of bass string is used) but they should not be DENIED that information. a honda accord may get higher marks for reliability & resale value but someone may still choose the vw jetta because it's fun to drive -- but they should have the opportunity to make that decision in light of the facts and not a particular high priest's opinion.

i'm actually surprised at the pushback here for data matrices, which would obviously (to me anyway) increase the credibility of this publication and bring it on par with comparative publications in any other industry (a simple questionnaire sent to the manufacturers along with instructions on how the data will be used & the scoring system should easily yield the requested data). perhaps it's because it's the only game in town that feedback falls on deaf ears. if it had a competitor this feedback would surely be taken seriously.

in the meantime i'll continue to scratch my head at some of the incredulous classifications on page 44.

Play all of the instruments on pages 44 & 45 and you may very well come to the same conclusions. You might take on the task of creating a spec based rating system, with info from the builders, and provide it to Mr. Fine for inclusion in PB.

Play all of the instruments on pages 44 & 45 and you may very well come to the same conclusions. You might take on the task of creating a spec based rating system, with info from the builders, and provide it to Mr. Fine for inclusion in PB.

i do both - they are not mutually exclusive.

and i have played most of the brands (and many of their models) on pg 44.

but my point - which is being sorely missed here - is not about yet another person's opinion, but augmenting the decision making process with FACT.

and why, pray tell, should i do someone else's job for them? as i said before, this is not rocket science... a little bit of research is all that's required.

and with this i'll sign off of this rather frustrating topic of conversation.

in the meantime i'll continue to scratch my head at some of the incredulous classifications on page 44.

Entheo,

The basic division of categories in Fine's writing was traidtionally related to mass-produced pianos being listed in a consumer grade and so-called hand-built pianos being listed in a performance grade. In the edition before the last one, Fine created a new category -- professional grade. Professional grade was changed to intermediate grade in the last edition because Fine felt that the term "professional" could be misleading.

Fine has stated here on PW in his posts that the division between mass-produced and hand-built is becoming less meaningful as so-called hand builders adapt to modern machinery and mass producers continue to refine their craft. I think the creation of a third category and the quick renaming of that category prove that the categorization issue is very much on his mind, and he doesn't feel he has resolved it. If you input Fine in the user list and read his posts on PW beginning with 2009, you will find that he is very forthcoming and doesn't mind a little give and take on this and other issues.

I don't understand at all the composition of the intermediate category as it is presently constituted, but I don't understand in general why Yamaha and Kawai artist pianos that are standards in performance venues are not 'performance' pianos, while other relatively obscure pianos that are virtually never used in performance venues are 'performance' pianos. Perhaps it's a category-naming issue more than a musical one, or perhaps it is categorically impossible for a mass-produced piano to crack the glass ceiling. What can you do? Fine doesn't pretend to have the final answers and his writing is descriptive, never prescriptive.